The went to war with the US and ousted saddam because he was an,?

Question

evil dictator who persecuted millions whilst lining his pockets with the nations wealth, so why are we letting mugabe get away with the same thing?
Is this because there is no oil and natural resources involved?

Answer 1

Its because Senior never tried so Junior wont bother

Answer 2

Mugabe isn't sponsoring international terrorist groups, Saddam did.
1.Saddam had less to do with terrorism than israel, al qaida would have wanted complete control of his country & he wouldn't have allowed that.
Mugabe has found the best way of assuring he's continued time as leader is letting his own people starve,
they're less likely to oppose him, if they're dead!
Mugabe doesn't have WMDs, Saddam did, and showed he was willing to use them.
2. saddam had no WMD, they were all decommissioned back in the 90s by several UN scientists. Including David Kelly, who's now dead from speaking out about Iraq being an illegal war in international law
Mugabe didn't invade another country. Saddam attacked two (four if you count sending missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War).
3 israel have more WMD than saddam ever did.

mugabe is the thorn in africas side, they humour him because they know he has brain cancer & is as nutty as a fruit cake!
he's on a complete self-delusional ego-trip, nothing gets through to him.

Answer 3

I saw where someone above me said that Saddam sponsored terrorist groups and he did not except the ones to hurt fellow Iraqis. Saddam was not even a Muslim; he was a Secularist. And there were no Iraqis even remotely involved in 9/11. And there were no WMDs in Iraq. So he (the guy above me) must be a die hard neo-con that's in denial. And yes, if it doesn't involve money, then you are not going to see this administration do anything concerning Mugabe or any other form of genocide, etc.

Answer 4

When it comes to international intervention, Africa is going to be avoided. Charles Taylor wreaked havoc in Liberia and Seirra Leone for years without any strong international intervention. In 2001, he sold diamonds and protected Al Qaeda agents in his country. For this, there were no real reprecussions for Taylor.
After the events in Somalia in the 90's, The U.S. has generally avoided engaging in African affairs. The genocide in Rwanda went on as world leaders watched. The only international response was a small under- equipped UN force who were already there prior to the genocide.
The U.S. has recently been involved in Somalia again, this time in the name of the war on terror. This is not for regime change, nor for making a democracy in that country, but to insure that terrorists don't take haven there.

Answer 5

Mugabe isn't sponsoring international terrorist groups, Saddam did.

Mugabe doesn't have WMDs, Saddam did, and showed he was willing to use them.

Mugabe didn't invade another country. Saddam attacked two (four if you count sending missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War).

Edit: I see denial is the tone of the day here. Saddam's longtime connections to terrorism are easily verifiable. Saddam killed tens of thousands of Iranians and his own citizens with WMDs, and Saddam invaded both Iran and Kuwait. What is so difficult about comprehending those etched in stone facts?

And by the way, Zimbabwe is quite rich in natural resources. That's the reason it was a British colony in the first place.

Answer 6

"...evil dictator who persecuted millions whilst lining his pockets with the nations wealth..." that sounds like many of the USA's 'Allies'. The difference with the late Sadam was that he stepped on the toes of some of the USA's 'Allies' toes, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... the ones who are also run by evil dictators who persecute millions whilst lining his pockets with their nations wealth - read up on the family Saud.

Mugabe is a two bit thug on the level of Idi Amin, but nowhere near big time players like the late Sadam.

Answer 7

Atrocities are committed on a daily basis in dozens of countries.

They´ll never be invaded because they have no natural resources to line the pockets of America.

Answer 8

Zimbabwe is a member of the African league of Nations. South Africa is the leaser of this group and it is SA's job to reign in Zimbabwe.

It would be wrong for any member of the rest of the world to support and agree to the end of aparthied and then go stamping all over the African nations when we deemed it necessary.

It is SA's duty to sort out this mess not ours.

Answer 9

Religeon keeps cropping up and for what reason i dont know.South Africa has this problem ,not the West,and personally id like to see the end of all conflicts,reguardless of where,and be allowed to conduct my own life,not any crank or something i dont believe in.But its a fact of history,if nothings happening,some idiot decides there the bee,s knee,s,and your going to listen by force usually.Sticks and Stones

Answer 10

Right old boy. No profit in it. Georgie's family doesn't have any stock in companies based in Zimbabwe, so he doesn't care what happens there, therefore he wouldn't initiate a conflict there, (i'll bet he doesn't even know where it is) so the rest have no need to follow his legions there.